A United States of Europe

I would like to thank Commissioner Reding for her honesty is reminding us that the aim of the EU project is a United States of Europe. As I have frequently pointed out before, they have got a long way towards creating one. It is not a superstate I want my country to be part of. We need a new relationship with the emerging USE.

The Commissioner thinks the unelected Commission (she just happens to be a member of it) should be the government. She thinks the European Parliament should be the equivalent of the House of Commons. She thinks there should be some new Senate for national politicians from member states to be the House of Lords. It’s generous of her to leave us that emaciated role in our government.

It is time that the media asked our leading European enthusiasts if they share their Commissioner’s vision. If they do not, how will they stop her and the many in Brussels who think as she does, from doing just that? It is time the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Douglas Alexander (Shadow Foreign Secretary) Mr Clegg and the other main pro Europeans were asked to confront the reality that the EU is evolving quickly into the United States of Europe. Why do they think that a good idea? Why haven’t they been honest about this obvious development? What do they think the UK should now do, given the unpopularity of the emerging USE with a majority of the British people?

The pro Europeans in UK politics have regularly briefed the press and made speeches saying they need to make the case for the EU, claiming it is good for the UK. They have never set out in detail just how many powers have already gone to the EU. They have not explained the growing tensions in our relationship, all the time we rightly stay outside the Euro when most of the rest are plunging headlong into more federal arrangements to preserve the currency. It is time they were asked to explain just how much Europe we already have, how much more they would like, and what they think of Mrs Reding’s refreshingly honest vision of where the logic of EU development takes its members.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

163 Comments

This is not really news since Ms Reding has made such announcements several times in the past, as has been pointed out by Richard North. JR would probably go on the defensive were I to suggest that Cameron should be included as pro-EU and asked if he shares the Commissioner’s view, but the question should be put to each one of the Conservative MPs and MEPs since it seems so many either are avowedly pro-EU, are surreptitiously pro-EU, or irresponsibly just wish the subject would go away. Please clean up your own Party as well as squaring up to the likes of Alexander and Clegg.

Reply No Conservative MP wants a federal EU on the lines of Mrs Reding. Mr Cameron wants the EU to do less, not more. The serious federal threat to the UK comes from Lib/Lab, the ones who pushed through Nice. Amsterdam and Lisbon, and would have put us into the Fiscal Treaty if they had been able to.

If Cameron wants less EU then why is he doing so little about it? Why did he rat his Cast Iron Promise thus throwing away the election, why does he have so many pro EU conservatives in his government, why do we have the absurd gender neutral insurance and annuity laws, why do we have HS2, why all the loan to the IMF and the PIGIS, why no action on open borders ……….

He simply cannot be trusted one inch or one millimetre as he would doubtless have it. He says one thing and does the opposite every time. The voters have seen through him where are the sensible Tories in his cabinet. Gove (and Cameron) even seem to support Tim Yeo, they clearly have a collective suicide wish for the party in May 15.

Ms Reding make the usual point that they pay more in tax than they get in benefits. She refers (I assume) just to direct financial benefits to them and ignores schools, health care, road and all the vast other costs of governments. The government spends about £10K per person PA. Someone on the minimum wage, say 13K perhaps pays in at most 3K in tax and both NI contributions, less what they get in child benefits and tax credits. With perhaps a wife and two children the government is actually spending/wasting £40K PA for 4 people. Looks like quite a net loss to me certainly in the short to medium term anyway.

Interesting that you think the money is being ‘wasted’ as you say. What should the money be spent on other than ensuring this family have decent standard of living? Are proposing that they should just fend for themselves in free market? Be peasants? Explain how they would survive in this right wing dream world. It’s been like this for decades with the average person having say, three children, not being worth their while to work. You propose to reduce the nations living standards to make the rich pay less tax and in particular tax dodging corporations or they would suddenly find themselves with a massive pay rise? Are you sure…

So he thinks that 10k a year or 200 quid a week is to much and somehow the people on this amount should compete with each other too in order to get themselves a job and lower employers costs whilst telling us that they make no contribution.
Clueless.

What sort of standard of living does £200 a week buy in Britain or anywhere else in the world edward? If you are going to tell us that the cost of living is is cheaper in some countries then you going to have to tell us specifically what is cheaper.

There is no obligation on the State or its citizens to be egalitarian. What makes you think you know better than the labour markets what people are worth? You should be profoundly grateful that income tax is progressive, the more so since the lower income tax threshold was raised and the 40% income tax threshold was lowered. The latter is now lower in real terms than it was in 1992. It hasn’t even kept pace with prices, let alone average incomes.

JR, do not insult our intelligence. Cameron’s actions to date do not demonstrate or evidence what you say. I fully endorse the comments made by the blogger. You do not have the likes of Clarke, Major and Heseltine around advising the government if you claim otherwise. Reported today a German minister calls Eurosceptics “brainless” for an article in a Greek paper. What does Cameron say to him?

Cameron says one thing and acts in contrast. This appears to run through your party. Immigration is still out of control and our public services unable to cope. Building on every piece of green land to house them. No housing problem and immigration problem. Cameron has treading water for nearly four years, continuing the EU agenda by stealth, the game is up. People do not believe or trust him.

The EU have never concealed their ultimate aim to form a United States of Europe: it has only been British politicians and media such as the BBC who have been keen to suppress public debate on this issue.

I suspect the actually quite a few Tory MPs do not care at all if there is an undemocratic federal EU rammed down the throats of voters. This so long as they can get a well paid job, a good pension, travel, expenses and special tax laws just for them. Perhaps a few “consultancies” on the side too in the Tim Yeo mode.

I am not sure who JR describes as “we”. I think Major learnt a lot from his time in government and in the worldiness, he does not want a repetition but an incremental integration to the EU. Remember these advisors and chums wanted the UK to be part of the Euro, Heseltine still does!

I can understand JR’s frustration and desperation but his cause is lost in the Tory party, as most of us have already come to realise under Cameron’s government. JR you need another line of approach; change your leader?

Reply to Mr Redwood: perhaps the most serious threat comes from those “Eurosceptic” MPs who will not take effective action. Words are not sufficient. Radical steps by true eurosceptics are needed urgently. Time is not on our side. I think that Duyfken is correct.

Well, pace Richard North it is really news, because it has been widely reported in the news while previous similar pronouncements from Reding and others did not really get into the news even though Richard noticed them …

As for JR’s reply that “No Conservative MP wants a federal EU on the lines of Mrs Reding”, with due respect he seems to have forgotten that Cameron and Hague and Osborne are Conservative MPs and they have been actively and publicly urging the eurozone countries to further federalisation, and that the EU treaties require that the eurozone must expand to encompass the whole of the EU apart from the UK and Denmark; if a federal eurozone including all of maybe as many as forty EU member states, apart from two, or only one if the Danish political class got their way, would not itself be a federal EU then it would be pretty damn close to a federal EU for practical purposes.

Reply Mr Cameron does not want the UK to b e part of federal Euroland!

You claim “Mr Cameron does not want the UK to be part of federal Euroland!”

Well his throwing of the last election, his EU cast iron (and IHT etc.) ratting and his subsequent actions have virtually ensured this regardless.
If he though that why would he appoint Lord Patten of all people to the BBC?

I am not remotely convinced your statement is true, one can only judge Cameron by his actions (what he says is bears no relation to his real plan). The dope is now even suggesting the recent bad weather was to do with global warming! I assume he thinks spring tides, strong winds, heavy rain and bad weather are a new thing!

At least Owen Patterson seems sound on the issue.

The only interesting question is what will Cameron do after May 14. I assume from his actions that he just plans to take the party over the cliff for several terms, following in John Major’s foot steps.

Well said Lifelogic. JR simply does not accept that most us do not believe or trust Cameron. JR is a minority voice that is kept on the back bench out of harms way to Europhile plans.

The Tory party are still hanging on to polling questions between Cameron and Miliband. People are answering to the questions posed NOT what they believe or think. The questions are skewed to answer they want. Delusional at best.

I am afraid Denis is correct. Look at their voting records and it becomes clear which way they want to head towards and it is not out of Europe in any way shape or form.

reply to reply – I am confused john – do you expect us to believe YOU believe that ?? – – or – -do YOU believe that? – -because I – and by the comments – NOBODY -believes he doesn’t want to be part of it

now if you say RULE It – – that is a different matter

for what use our govts have been in recent years – for this country -we might as well take any unknown immigrant and vote them in to be PM – -after all – there is enough here now to do it.

Martin Schultz is no minor player in the EU. He is a man of importance and tipped, by some, to replace Barroso. Neither is he a patsy for Merkel, she of course has her own issues when it comes to matters EU and the level of integration wanted.

A new Treaty is on the horizon, and the Commission and its allies, who have never been quite on this matter, are looking to establish ‘ever closer union’. Something that was mentioned in the Treaty of Rome, signed by Edward Heath, Conservative PM.

At last. The beginning of the end for the EU and Britain and the LibLabCon legacy Parties. It’s time that either we had the EU or Parliament NOT both. If it’s the former we can start to take the action necessary to free ourselves of the existing dictatorship that exists but is hidden from us. Mr Redwood, please don’t make excuses for your leader. Everyone out here knows his position which is not in tune with the British public who want out and our borders secured.
The next few years is vital for us to regain our democracy, sovereignty and remove the quislings Federalists from Parliament. They have lied and spun for far to long. Where’s the statement of Cameron, Clegg and Milliband to these calls? ………….Silence from them one and all.
UKIP are the only Party to have responded!

But as I understand it, any decision taken by the EU has to be unanimous. Do you seriously think that all the EU members are going to agree to changes that advantage some EU states and not others. Don’t they say that turkeys don’t vote for Xmas?

It might be interesting to look back at what was said by the two sides in the 1975 referendum. I can’t find a reference now but I do seem to remember the term ‘United States of Europe’ was mentioned at the time but pooh-poohed by the pro EU campaign as ‘scare mongering’. The Yes campaign gave assurances that:
” No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”

Whereas the No campaign warned of the danger of Britain becoming “A mere province of Europe”

Everyone can form their own opinion but it looks to me that the scare mongering was largely on the Yes side. Warning of higher unemployment , higher inflation, lower of world influence etc

They said ” Britain would no longer have any say in the future economic and political development of the Common Market. Nor on its relations with the rest of the world – particularly on the help to be given to the poorer nations of the world. We would just be outsiders looking in.”

JR you did indeed speak against membership but you party has mainly just buried the issue and hidden the truth since Ted Heath. Cameron is doing the same. A few EU skeptic noises before elections but caving in to the grand EU project every time. Cameron is just the same as Major but lacks the excuse of being daft.

“It is time that the media asked our leading European enthusiasts if they share their Commissioner’s vision. ”

Hallelujah! If only! The sheer ignorance of what is going on staggers me. Read, for example, the front rank speech of the Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso for 2013. He said exactly the same thing: more Europe. Nobody was reporting or listening, of course. He really means it.

So where was the media? Where was the Today Programme? Where was anything on Radio 4? Sorry, the Labour Party doesn’t do Europe. Look at any Labour web sites.

Which vehicle was used to express her ideas? Is there a written article/paper or was she interviewed ? If she was interviewed in what arena?
She should be interviewed or her views expressed loudly in the UK media and a fuss made about it. Only with sufficient whipping up of a scenario with a potential future can the British people begin to understand the true intention of the commissioner and others.

Reply The BBC have run her on their airwaves and their blog. It’s out there.

For goodness sake the origin isn’t the issue. The lack of general familiarity and media exposure is my gripe. It is not good enough saying it is out there if all members of the public don’t realise the eventual intention.Most were aware of European extension but not aware of the finer details.I myself have been aware for a long time , but out there, they don’t.

meet “ordinary” people ?? – – as London is over 50% immigrant is she deliberately avoiding the REAL british people -who are well and truly fed up (JR would have edited stronger words) -of having their country destroyed.

There has to be a real opportunity for clear blue water for the Conservatives at the next election on the issue of the EU and on green policies which force high energy prices (though David Cameron talked some unscientific nonsense at PMQs on this).

What is your view of Toby Young’s Country before Party campaign for Conservatives and UKIP voters to exchange votes in marginals in order to keep the Eurofederalist global warming fanatic Miliband out of No 10?

isn`t there a modern day Oliver Cromwell out their,i am sick of all this bull s#*t, we need out of the EU and not loads of fancy words, we need our country back and NOW

Reply To do that we need an In/Out referendum, and to get that we need a Conservative government. As you can see, Labour and Lib dems are trying to stop us getting a vote because they want to keep us in.

We didn’t need a referendum to be in did we? The previous vote in 1975 was all about trade and the rest was hidden and lies (FCO 30/1048 tells the truth). It was treason and treachery by our ruling class. It seems as many obstacles as possible are being placed in our way to get out. The BBC should be broken up or sold off at the earliest opportunity to make any debate fairer and not straight left wing propaganda as it always is e.g. Last nights Question time with the planted audience as always! When will it be unlawful for the EU to sponsor the BBC and LibLabCon’s?
UKIP and other anti EU parties should be given public money to explain the true costs, not lies and spin by the LibLabCons.

Bulls..t John.
With a Tory government and Cameron in charge nothing will change. he will still have Clarke, Hesletine etc advising him. Todays business section of the DT reports that the EU will have to rethink it’s energy policy as the last soviet 5 year plan has been an expensive failure. Failure to cut emissions and guilty of exporting EU jobs abroad.
We now wait for the next 5 year plan which again will no doubt end in an expensive failure and the LibLabCON will embrace wholeheartedly and gold plate it. Cameron is still banging on about climate change being responsible for the storms but I guess he doesn’t remember the snow of 1947 or the gales in the 50’s.
Chancers all of you.

I agree “With a Tory government and Cameron in charge nothing will change” Will the BBC full of EUphiles and endless propaganda I am not even certain Cameron could not swing the referendum vote to stay in with a few fig leaf concessions.

There is certainly a strong moral argument that if something has been decided directly by the people through a referendum then that decision should not be reversed by Parliament without first getting the consent of the people through another referendum.

However we have only ever had one referendum on this matter, the 1975 retrospective referendum on whether our country should remain a party to the Treaty of Rome, and moreover since then Parliament has effectively reversed crucial elements of that decision made by the people by approving subsequent amending treaties, and without ever holding another referendum to directly ask the people whether they consented to those changes.

Starting with Single European Act which began the process of abolishing national vetoes entirely contrary to the promise that:

“The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.”

and later with the Maastricht Treaty which vitiated the 1975 reassurance that the threat of Economic and Monetary Union “has been removed”, and so on.

So I’m not convinced that morally we do “need” a referendum before Parliament can undo its previous misdeeds and instruct the government to put in the notice of our withdrawal under Article 50 TEU; we just need to elect a majority of MPs who would be prepared to do that, and I don’t think will get them by voting for the parliamentary candidates offered by any of three old parties, all three of which are led by people who are totally committed to keeping us in the EU at all costs.

What is needed in the first instance is the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. And needs to come from everyone !

Next, we need to establish what exactly is in our best interests. What do we, as a Nation actually want. The EU is a political project and we cannot be part of something we never wanted to be a part of in the first place. We therefore need to leave. And the only method acceptable is to issue an Article 50 declaration stating to the President of the European Council of Ministers’ and other Member States of our intention to leave and seek a negotiated settlement.

We also need to establish what other arrangements we need. It has been suggested that the most expedient way for to the UK to leave and still maintain trade links with the EU, is via an EFTA/EEA arrangement.

Once the above is completed, we can then begin to real any laws that we do not like and maintain those we either wish to maintain or, due to being signatories to other treaties, mandated to keep them.

In the longterm, we can then seek to have bi-lateral arrangements with the EU and other countries.

A statement of one commissioner is quoted and people who are pro-EU are challenged to support it. If they fail to do so the implication is that the pro-EU case cannot be made. If they attempt to do so they have to adopt the views of a commissioner whose detailed policies they might not know, and might not support if they did know them.

There are many reasons for supporting the EU and not all who do so will want to evolve towards a United States of Europe. It is perfectly possible to support the EU and not support a superstate.

I don’t think there is anything of substance here except that a commissioner has said that she believes that the EU should evolve to a “United States of Europe”, whatever that means. Nothing new there. I know people in the UK who agree with that, and people who do not agree.

Reply She is speaking for the Commission and for many on the continent. That is why people who support our current membership of the EU should be asked if they agree with her direction of travel, or how they are going to stop it if they do not.

The Commission manages and implements policy, but it does not make it. I don’t think there is an EU policy to progress to a superstate, apart from the ambivalent phrase of moving towards a closer union. If Mrs Redding has said she wants to evolve towards a United States of Europe I imagine that must be her private opinion. Even if everyone on the Commission agrees with her, they cannot bring it about.

But I enjoy reading some of the anti EU comments on this blog because I am always keen to hear the opposite view. As a pro EU person I have learnt a lot about the EU from reading the comments about those who oppose it.

I see Ms Reding obtained a doctorate in human sciences at the Sorbonne. Perhaps a little basic arithmetic might have been more use to her, for the cost/benefit analysis of this low wage immigration.

The EU bias from the BBC could be seen in its full glory this morning in the manner (and the order) that Lord Peter Mandelson was interviewed after Lord Dobbs (who is sponsoring the EU bill in the Lords). Both were interviewed by Evan Davis in totally different ways. At about 8.10 this morning. No one could be in much doubt about the BBC agenda on the issue but then Cameron appointed Lord Patten to the BBC so one assumes this bias is exactly what Cameron wanted.

Is it not time the BBC was renamed the EUBC to reflect the reality, perhaps they could pay for it all too.

Lord Dobbs seemed rather pro EU too he stupidly voted to stay in 74(?). So no real input from the right side of the issue at all from the BBC. If they do get one one they just hint they are all racists or fruit cakes and nut cases – as does Cameron.

Dear John–Are you going to comment on Toby Young’s (abetted by James Delingpole and others) Country Before Party thinking? Anything that might hinder EUphile Conservatives sounds just fine to me if only it can be put in to practice, not easy of course.

Reply to Reply–Now that I DO find surprising. Please put a peg on your nose if necessary and take a look at Delingpole’s recent blog which contains a link to Young’s idea, still a bit rudimentary. Would have thought you could consider taking part. It is NOT particularly UKIP, and does NOT do down the Conservatives in general–indeed the hope is that Cameron will remain PM.

reply I will look at it. Given the views and personalities of Mr Farage and Mr Cameron I do not expect a UKIP/Conservative deal anytime soon.

I thought that a paper was to be published about how much the EU cost the country. This does not seemed to have seen the light of day.
As a country we are being side lined, as more and more of our powers are being eroded. If you listen to the EU parliament alot of it is Brit bashing, we seem to be the scapegoats with things being laid at our door.

Get that second home by working for less than minimum wage liflogic or even working come to think of it..? France? That land of no regulations and free markets? The very same. The other house being in a mythical country bordering La La land. A tax and regulation free utopia that should its location ever be revealed will cease to exist. Ram it.

Reding herself has very clearly elicited the sentiment she believes the upcoming Euro elections will represent a vote on a USoE. Those are her words and it’s difficult to interpret them in a manner in which apparently she must have meant something entirely different. Her words are also wholly in tune with comments made by many other very senior EU figures.

That being the case, it’s worth noting that we’re still some months from this year’s EU elections. In keeping with the clear sentiments of these figures, it could hardly be too difficult to add to each and every ballot paper in the UK’s Euro elections a separate box indicating whether the individual voter wished the UK to be a member state of a United States of Europe?

I just don’t see how Reding or the other senior EU figures could possibly object? Being that the concept is entirely in keeping with the EU administration sentiments expressed, it’s difficult to see how hard-line extremist pro-EU figures such as Clegg or Miliband could possibly find offence?

I don’t suppose you’d find yourself at a PMQ’s close to hand and propose that yourself, would you, Mr. Redwood? If this coming election indeed is to be held in that manner, at least permit the electorate to make a clear, manifest statement on the matter on the relevant day?

Reply We have tried in this Parliament to get an early In/Out referendum and were voted down. Labour and Lib dems do not us to have a vote on this., and Conservatives on our own cannot carry it.

I don’t want the resident citizens of all other EU countries to be allowed to vote on whether our country should remain in the EU, which is what would happen if you tried to combine the EU Parliament elections with an in/out referendum.

It’s bad enough that Wharton’s Bill specifies that the electorate for the referendum would be that for UK parliamentary elections (plus peers and Gibraltarians); that register itself includes resident citizens of the Irish Republic and Cyprus and Malta, without also inviting hundreds of thousands of Poles and other eastern Europeans to vote for continuing subsidies to their home countries and no possible future question about their legal right to live and work here.

I don’t think there can be many other countries around the world which are so casual about allowing foreign citizens to vote in their elections and referendums, most have the sense to restrict the franchise to their own citizens.

…’each and every ballot paper in the UK’s Euro elections a separate box indicating whether the individual voter wished the UK to be a member state of a United States of Europe?’…

My phraseology specifically limited my intents to UK voters only, and voting upon UK mandate only. I have no interest as to whether overseas voters wish their own, or other nations to be compelled to reside within such a structure. My comments were solely restricted to UK voters speaking for UK matters alone.

As for Mr. Redwood’s reply, no matter his own personal stance, which does not lack clarity, I made no mention of an ‘In\Out’ referendum. I highlighted solely the advantage of making a clear and tacit reply to Ms. Reding’s comments and posture. The only thing between the achievement or the failure being political will.

But all resident EU citizens are entitled to vote in what you call “the UK’s Euro elections”, so those who wanted to vote would get a ballot paper with that box in which they could help decide the future of our country. As the ballot is secret there would be no way to count all the ballot papers for the purpose of the election but then identify and discard all those from foreign citizens for the purpose of deciding whether the UK should be a member of a United States of Europe.

John–Your Reply is slightly disingenuous–the sort of thing that Farage’s NOT doing makes him so popular BTW–because it is obvious in spades what Cameron really thinks, else he could actually stand up and say he is prepared to leave if it came to it–which he very much hasn’t

Reply I tell you the truth as I see it. Mr Cameron is no federalist. As serving PM in a coalition with federalist Lib Dems he is not going to say he would like to leave the EU. He is regularly lobbied from the other side of the debate by Lib Dems, business reps etc as well as constantly from the Out/new relationship side by most Conservative MPs. He is the only PM to offer a renegotiation and a referendum since Wilson, and he does want a different relationship to the current one. Time will tell if he can secure it – if he can’t then we will vote for Out.

Reply to reply. Sorry Mr Redwood, he cannot have meaningful discussions with the EU without invoking Article 50. Every politician knows this, every citizen who understands the workings of the EU knows this, so why are you perpetuating the myth that Mr Cameron is not playing silly ‘b*ggers’ (sorry!, giving us the runaround).

The people will never get to vote and if they do, and vote ‘NO’, the EU will ignore it.

Democracy it aint!

Reply I am not messing around. I want a referendum. I voted No in 1975 and if we had an In/Out referendum today I would vote No again, as the current arrangements are unacceptable. If Mr Cameron is unable to negotiate a new relationship that makes sense then we all have the opportunity to vote No and get out. That all of course requires a Conservative rather than a Labour or Lib/Lab government next time.

Ask yourself why? Is it because they are not following a right wing enough agenda? If you believe this will get them elected you are more deluded than I previously thought. This right wing agenda stopped them from being elected and it will be their downfall as millions should not face hardship and poverty whilst they take none of their own medicine as you do not either.

What Cameron says (as he has shown repeatedly) bears no relationship to what he actually does, and what one assumes, he actually thinks.

He is the sort of man that one can only judge by his actions (nearly all have been pro EU, pro larger state, pro higher taxes, pro more regulation and pro lots of green crap and expensive energy), he simply cannot be trusted.

These are good questions which deserve answers. Whether we shall get them is another matter. Of immediate interest is the House of Lords consideration of the Bill to offer a referendum on membership in 2017. What is said and how the House of Lords votes will be a revealing test. Perhaps the opponents of the Bill there will tell the rest of us, the great unwashed outside, why we must be denied the opportunity of a referendum.

Even if the referendum bill is rejected in the Lords (or more likely it’s amended but failed because the Commons doesn’t have enough time to vote on these amendments) Cameron can simply introduce it next year and use the Parliament Act to force it through the Lords.

Yes, but while James Wharton came top of the last ballot and his Bill is now with the Lords the MP who came second was Paul Blomfield and I find that his High Cost Credit Bill is still stuck at its Second Reading in the Commons:

So wouldn’t the willing Tory MP actually have to come top of the next ballot for there to be any chance of the repeat Bill getting through all the stages in the Commons in time, even if the Labour and LibDem MPs allowed that to happen?

Reply, NO but it would help and may come to pass if the Lords mess around

But you did not opt-out (really an opt-in since we can still choose to enter) of making us ALL, including the Head of State as stated by the then PM, John Major, EU Citizens. Because, by making everyone an EU Citizen, provides them with equal access to another EU Member States job market and welfare system.

The rest of the treaty is clearly very federal too and they voted for that. The Tory party is perhaps half EU sceptic at best. A UKIP deal is the only hope and it will not happen with a Libdem like Cameron.

You’re scared to be the ones that give voters a REAL choice and you’re scared of the result. You’re scared to run a country on your own without being led by the nose by Brussels and you are scared of the negotiating that has to be done during the two year Article 50 period.

Too many politicians have a personal interest financially in whether we stay or not and are putting their wallets before their duty to the Britons.

This will be a defining moment in history for the British Government. Will you go down in the text books as the government who allowed us to be led into a non-democratic superstate or not?

Either way, most of us have had enough, we want out or at least be given a choice. Oh, and we want an English Parliament too.

reply Not true. I voted for an In/Out referendum in 2011.I have pushed for an In/Out referendum as soon as possible. I have helped persuade the Conservatives in the government to offer an In/Out next Parliament, and have voted for a Bill to do just that.

“Will you go down in the text books as the government who allowed us to be led into a non-democratic superstate or not? ”

I think they already have. Heath signed us up to this Project knowing full well what the ultimate result would be. The Conservative Party have, and will always be, a Europhile Party. They may not be 100% Europhile but, neither are they sufficiently Eurosceptic.

Reply We are a Eurosceptic party and have been since the successful battle to stop the Euro.

“.We are a Eurosceptic party”. No, no, and no again. How many treaties and negotiations do we have to witness and hear the weasel words of your leader and the other legacy parties to know the truth?
This has been going on for over forty years. My Country has changed beyond all recognition, betrayed by all three parties. Your legacy is appalling and the latest leadership offerings………..pathetic. Enough. We want out now, not at some indeterminate time in the future with some 5 million more being granted rights to live here with equal rights to the indigenous population as LibLabCons have sold us out to the EU and others! Renegotiation? How many times does your leader need to be referred to Article 50?

Reply We are a Eurosceptic party and have been since the successful battle to stop the Euro. But Major rammed through the Maastricht Treaty so not so EUsceptic.

And Cameron:-

“Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.”

Cameron then Ratted then on the above, he become PM did he not and no referendum? Then appointed endless EUphiles to the BBC and government, lend soft money to the PIGIS and IMF and decided the EU should fix insurance premiums and annuity rates rather than insurance companies.

Ms. Reding made a very badly timed effort in claiming that a united Europe – politically and economically , was both necessary and unavoidable . She has completely failed to heed the growing mood throughout the EU that the present system is not working . As the recipient of a handsome salary and expenses purse , she has , probably , taken fright that she is close to losing her luxurious way of life . In publicising her view in the run up to the EU elections , she has made the mistake of thinking it would cause the voters to believe in her judgement ; it has had the opposite effect – Nigel Farage is rubbing his hands in glee .

Bert, sorry mate, but I think you are wrong. Commissioner Reding will get her TAX FREE life style no matter what happens in May this year. Her loyalty and thereby her financial future is more than secure. No one has or will vote for this woman or any of the Commissioners. They being ‘appointed’ by heads of Government like Cameron, not elected by the likes of you or me.

What Commissioner Reding is doing, is being honest, and not for the first time either. It just now, its being reported.

Please stop omitting the “European enthusiasts” in your own party of whom, sadly, there are many. Put them on the spot. Will your party’s manifesto for the EU elections specifically reject UK membership of a United States of Europe? Will your leader publically reject a United States of Europe? Will Ken Clarke publically reject it? I think the answers to my questions are No,No,No.

Reply The answer is Yes, Yes, Yes. Of course the Conservative Manifesto will be strongly against a United States of Europe, as our 2010 one was.

If you really do believe that the answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, you really have been hoodwinked.
When your party’s EU manifesto is published this year I shall read with interest what it says about a USE and this country’s membership of the EU. As for Cameron and Clarke I don’t expect them to publically reject a USE any time soon, if ever. I do expect them to continue the pretence that UK membership of the EU is essential.

reply I can assure you Mr Cameron is strongly against a United States of Europe, and our manifesto will be against it.

It’s not good enough for you to keep saying you voted against this and that. Will the EU manifesto contain any clues as to what we will be re-negotiating. Will any redlines be set? I think it will just be another vague attempt to shoot the UKIP fox and it will fail.
How will Redding react to Eurosceptics being voted in in large numbers at the EU ballot. Will she say that’s enough proof that the plebs want more Europe. With past form whatever is said or done is always an indication that the EU isn’t doing enough.
Last chance saloon for the Tories John.

John: can you list the important distinguishing factors which differentiate the Conservative party view on EU membership from a United States of Europe?

reply The Conservative party seeks a new relationship based on trade and political co-operation. We voted against and do not accept Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, and we vetoed the EU Fiscal Treaty, forcing them to make it a non EU agreement.

Mr Cameron vetoed a fiscal Treaty and it was renamed to a compact to get around the need for a referendum here, under the pointless referendum lock legislation. As always, he also didn’t get anything in return for allowing the EU institutions to be used.
The internet is a problem for modern day political parties as we can find the truth which the EU and others happily publish on there website as they have no reason to lie or spin!

and of course we can believe that if the party says “that’s what we will do – vote for us !” – -we will believe every word – -anyone else gets a job on the basis of doing the “job description” – or else they are sacked – – -whereas MPs say they will do XYZ – get voted in – then just dismiss everything they said they were going to do – -but still carry on getting paid !!!

As I have said previously, your ‘new relationship’ argument seems to me to be that you will happily stay in if you get some changes which suit you. But your ‘new relationship’ will thus be elastic – open to manipulation outside our control, – that seems how we are where we are, and I am not in the least bit comfortable with it. Consequently I am one of the many who wants to be on the outside. That’s the ‘new relationship’ I want.

If I am wrong about your view and you just want out as I do, just say so, campaign for it, and save all the agonising and posturing.

Reply I am not agonising or posturing. I voted NO in 1975, and want a new relationship based on trade and political co-operation, outside the current federal Treaties. What is there to dislike or what do you not understand about that? I am trying to secure us all an In/Out referendum, so we can make our view clear.

One of Osborne’s first acts in government was to cut British multinationals’ tax bills by at least £7bn by granting them exemptions when they moved money into tax havens helping some multinationals pay little as if any. Britons can escape taxes by pretending to be foreigners and the top rate of tax has been cut. There are your tax cuts Osborne could have made wealthy parents pay tax on the gifts to their children, but has not so there is your IHT cut. The poor have been taxed more by the raising of VAT and benefit cuts as an incentive to get rich and reduce the deficit by paying less tax.
If you want more of the same as I’m sure you do then vote Tory.

Human nature being what it is, it was inevitable that the United States of Europe was the end game for the European Ruling Class. (words left out ed|)

Ms Reding’s federal superstate plan does actually make sense if a superstate is what you want. Hers’ is a copy of the USA, as far as I can tell, which did work but nowadays, the US “federal” government has become all powerful and the fifty States have been reduced to our equivalent of County Councils. I doubt if any State could secede from the federal Union now, if it wanted. They would be doing the whole world a favour if they did.

Ms Redings model won’t work without a single federal Treasury spending the Euros into existence and issuing a single federal debt / savings / IOU (Gilt) instrument. The single federal central bank (ECB) already exists for the members that use the “Eurosystem”. But that exists inside the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) that includes all 28 Nation Central Banks, that still exist to speak ECB in the local language to local politicians. Some dealing in Euro and Non-Euro currencies. I am willing to bet the Euro will be made compulsory in a future Treaty for continued membership.

BUT BUT BUT. The bit to watch is the COR, Committee of the Regions, now considerably more powerful after the Lisbon Treaty. Its mission to “regionalise” the EU from the bottom up. Infiltrating local and regional Councils throughout the EU, stirring up separatist movements in the likes of Scotland, Catalonia etc etc. This, to break down the legacy 28 Nation structure into circa 97 EU Regions. Each will have a little mickey mouse parliament, a bit like a County Council, and an elected Governor, bit like a US State.

Only after a civil war which claimed the lives of more Americans than the total of all those killed in all other wars in which the US has ever been involved, during which civil war the federalists used the industrial muscle of the north to brutally crush their opponents in the south.

The majority of our MP’s appear not to have much of a clue about the EU, what it is, what it does, or where its going, and the majority of our population even less so.
Listening to some of them on the news media, I wonder if some actually care.

MP’s appear to simply accept guidance given to them by the Party whips, who themselves do not have a clue, because they are given guidance by the Party leaders, who are given their brief by the Eu commissioners.

Fully aware that a number of Mp’s including yourself attempt to gain and read as much as possible on all regulations and legislation, and I thank you for that, but the shear volume of paperwork coming out of the EU makes that absolutely impossible.

The EU is just a supersize House of Commons.
How many MPs actually read the HS2 proposals which took up 55,000 pages, yet they all voted on it, be it for or against, simply on advice from Party hacks.

The simple fact is:
Our own Government is too large, but the EU is simply massive, they have thousands of people drafting up more and more paperwork by the day, the week, the month, the year.
The EU showed it cannot be trusted when it suggested robbing the Cyprus people of their savings, the very people who had absolutley nothing to do with the failure of that Country’s finances.
That one act of thought, should have shown everyone HOW THE EU WANTS TO OPERATE.
It is an organisation driven from the top and within that is drunk on power, who like addicts, constantly needs the fix of more and more money and power to feed the habit.

Time for the Members to make it go cold turkey John , else we will all be eaten by this monster.

If nobody stands up to the EU soon, I eventually (it may take a few more years) see complete unrest by the people in some countries, and the often chanted mantra of “Peace in Europe” will be silenced as one nation goes against another.

A group of free trade Nations sounded a good idea at the time, but that time, and that idea, has long since passed.

“The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the Executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.”

And that was when some of her eurofanatic colleagues decided that she had to be removed forthwith, with Geoffrey Howe resigning two days later on November 1st 1990 and making his infamous resignation speech in the Commons on November 13th, swiftly followed by the leadership challenge from Michael Heseltine.

Both have since been installed in the House of Lords as unelected legislators-for-life, and use their unmerited public positions to defend the EU and promote its interests over our national interests.

Of course there were pretexts for the removal of Thatcher, and knowing much less than I do now and like most people having many other things demanding my attention I didn’t fully understand what was going on and was not sorry to see Thatcher go.

I too did not understand what was going despite being on chatty terms with a couple of the assassins.

My heart sank when I heard our PM say at PMQs that
he agreed with the proposition [by a Lib Dem] that the recent stormy weather had been caused by global warming.
It is becoming increasingly apparent ,at least to me, that those who advocate the whole global warming meme are also those who are pro EU ,pro big government, pro a world carbon tax.

Those who deal with the facts ,
that there has been no global warming for 17 years and 3 months despite steadily rising CO2,
that there is even now only 1/25th of 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere,
that at least 75% of that comes from natural sources
that of the remaining 25 % [max] we in the UK produce just 2% ,
are also aware that

Adding CO2 to plants makes them grow faster and lose less water through their leaves. CO2 is the gas of life.

To believe you can ‘save the planet’ by reducing CO2 production is deluded and points to an act of faith – socialist in origin and character- pessimistic and controlling in application.

A similar mindset applies to the Euro and the huge damage it is doing to a generation of Southern Europeans .

Most contributors to this blog, led by JR himself ,are pragmatic optimists looking for ways to improve life for the people of this country by unleashing the pent up individual talent that currently lies dormant.

I think many of us through this excellent blog have a much greater appreciation of what is going on at present.

i would just like everyone to look at that Youtube video and make a note of what Lady Thatcher said (0:45 in) when she mentions that the Labour Party would give up the pound. I earnestly believe that if/when Milliband becomes the next PM after 2015, he will give up the ‘opt-out (really an opt-in) over the Euro, and leave it to another Government to pick up the mess he has made.

Mr. Redwood – I wonder if others are puzzled (well, ignorant – in my case, to be honest) of how the current EU works. I wonder if you might consider a few sentences (or even a blog article) to summarise how it works. I keep reading about ‘unelected commissioners’ and have the impression they have a lot of power. What is the relationship between Commissioners and the EU Parliament? Who ‘governs’? Who decides what legislation is to be enacted? And so on.

Reply I will do so sometime. Briefly, Commissioners are chosen by national governments and form the executive of the EU. They have powers to make a wide range of decisions, and have the sole power to draft and propose new laws to the Council (meeting of elected Ministers from member states) and the European parliament. They operate under the agreed EU rules. E.g. The Competition Commissioner decides whether to allow mergers and deals, and whether to investigate alleged cartels, price fixing etc

Reply to your reply, John. May I suggest that anyone wanting to know more about how the EU makes law, directives, regulations and so on that they do a web search ‘How EU laws are made’. That could save you much typing!
Personally I’d recommend this link but will quite understand if you wish to not post it…http://www.brugesgroup.com/HowEULawsAreMade.pdf

I’d like to know something quite specific. I’d like to know how many Directives have been issued by the EC since our Accession to the Maastricht Treaty became law in this country.

Then I’d like to know the split into those concerned with the harmonisation of goods produced, those concerned with social aspects of how goods are made (Working Time Directive etc), and all other directives. Only the first of these three categories of Directive is legitimate, and even these should be kept to a minimum.

Commissioners have the REAL power, many of them have the ear of lobby groups. I have read allegations of commissioners having legislation drawn for them by lobby groups and not understanding what was being drawn up.

I am not aware of any mechanism to hold them properly to account like we are able to do our MPs.

You have the problem of laws being shaped by someone you have never heard of which national governments are expected to implement.

“We need a true political union. To me this means that we need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a “Senate” of Member States.”

and continues:

“But there are of course other opinions out there for the future of Europe. You might have other ideas as well. And that is how it should be. We need to have a broad debate before we start to make the big changes required.”

And as I understand she is proposing to hold a “town-hall style” event in London on February 10th, so that we can all articulate our alternative ideas before they are ignored and the EU proceeds to make those “big changes”:

We’ve been through this kind of PR exercise before, actually; back in 2002 there was “Futurum”, “The Future of the European Union – Debate”, when the EU kindly asked “its” citizens for their ideas online; that “debate” came to an end once the Convention on the Future of Europe had produced its draft of the overtly federal EU Constitution, which was rejected in the French and Dutch referendums; whereupon after a decent interval, a “period of reflection”, with “Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate”:

Merkel had almost all its legal contents decanted into her “Reform Treaty”, which was finalised as the Lisbon Treaty, which was rejected in the first Irish referendum; whereupon after another decent interval the Irish were made to vote again and say “yes” well before the UK general election, so that Cameron would have an excuse for not putting it to a UK referendum …

Oh, and Reding also said:

“we have to ensure that democracy catches up with this new construction we are building”

and

“All of us need to get the message across: European Parliament elections are more important than national elections.”

Which is an interesting interpretation when national elections are for sovereign national parliaments, while the EU Parliament is not a sovereign parliament but is still merely the creature of the sovereign member states through their treaties, exercising defined powers which have been delegated from those member states; which is why, to take a trivial example, it does not have the power to decide that it will sit in just one place.

It seems quite clear to me why Miliband, Clegg and Alexander are keen to be part of the EU and also why Scottish ‘separatists’ also have this ambition. They are all socialists and feel comfortable in this monolithic socialist structure, much as the leaders of the Soviet puppet regimes were 50 years ago. And no chance of any ‘right-wing’ people ever making any impression on the grim Evil Empire either, or so they think.

May I reply to your reply to mick at 8.40: “Reply To do that we need an In/Out referendum, and to get that we need a Conservative government. As you can see, Labour and Lib dems are trying to stop us getting a vote because they want to keep us in.”

No, we do not!

Conservative governments are as responsible for the present situation as previous Labour governments and current Conservative leadership has given the Liberal Democrats a power in coalition which denies the Conservative attitude you claim. Promise of a referendum in 2017 IF Conservatives win the GE in 2015, is a promise of jam tomorrow like the promise made to Alice. We want no more fairy stories and tales of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Our membership of the European Union was engineered by lies and confirmed by a heavily biased referendum in 1975. It is unlawful, being contrary to our Constitution. Parliamentarians, with a few exceptions who have protested, have been acting unconstitutionally ever since the Liberal government’s Parliament Act of 1911, which robbed Monarch and House of Lords of power to restrain a dictatorial Commons.

In recent years, both Con and Lab governments have been intent on legislation to destroy the constitution which could control their ambitions. Life Peers for political toadies, changes to Treason Laws, fixed-term Parliaments, changes to the Royal Succession – all designed to justify unlawful government.

What is needed is individual Parliamentarians who are honest, honourable and courageous, putting the country before personal gain and citizens who will call their representatives to account.

John Wrake..

Reply A substantial number of us Eurosceptic Tories have defied 3 line whips on several occasions to try to get a better answer, but this Parliament is federalist with the Conservatives in minority. We have achieved a new policy position from the Conservative leadership in favour of a referendum as a result. You always ignore the arithmetic, but it’s the numbers in the Commons that counts.

In many ways the individual countries within the EU already have far less freedom than the individual states within the USA.
More to the point, the individual states in America guard their rights very carefully and oppose anything that might lose them power to central government. For example, some states still have the death penalty, others don’t; that would never be allowed within the EU! Colorado, as recently reported in the news, has legalised the sale of Cannabis, whilst in other states its possession is banned. Traffic laws vary from state to state.
The EU, on the other hand wants to move towards making the laws identical in all countries, leaving individual parliaments with only trivial issues to discuss, and presumably, in the long run, making them redundant.

what it started as – and what they want now – -is totally different -as someone said- – empire building -pure and simple. – and Cameron wants to be handed one of the jobs – not one of the cast offs -he (and his buddies) -firmly believe they are better than the rest – by saying “we are all in this together” – no-one believes you. -after all -the rest of us cant claim mileage – for a vote we didn’t partake in.

Reding (someone I had never heard of before) by being open and honest about the direction of the EU Juggernaut has become the biggest recruiting sergeant for the anti EU movement that we could have hoped for.

I only hope the media is now honest and people now wake up to what is happening and consider possible future consequences – though I don’t expect the BBC to abide by their Royal Charter and serve UK interests anytime soon.

Euro MPs as we now know have little if any power when their interests are pitched against a mainland Euro group and can simply get shouted down. People complain that our current FPTP system does little for minority groups – the EU would make the problem a whole lot worse.

Lets just hope come next year the rest of the EU wake up as well and vote in a huge block of anti EU MEPs to derail the whole thing before they grab member states policing and military capabilities – we know that’s next on the agenda.

Given what has now been admitted – do the likes of Lord Major, Howe, Heseltine, Ken Clarke now realize that membership of this organization has been a huge mistake or are they quietly carrying on the same old mantra?

They are clearly carrying on, not always quietly. Politicians very rarely admit mistakes, even to themselves, ask Tony Blair. When they do it is usually after a criminal conviction – ” I made an error” being code for “my criminal behaviour in no way implies that I am a crook” (CF Chris Huhne and Dennis McShane).

Reply to reply – John, you were in government with all of them bar Howe, and they are still members of your party. Surely, you must canvas their opinion just in case they might want to join you and your colleagues in voting as you do?

I share your frustrations John. Its time the media asked a lot more questions, not just on this but on other stuff the political bubble has decided with little or no public engagement or support. Lots of stuff like uncapped ICT work visas and the way they are being used, dropping the speed limit to 60 on parts of the M1 (are they mad?), and so on and so on, it doesn’t feel much like a democracy more like misguided rule by a very narrow and insular part of society.

I note the labour party is now busy revising its stance on immigration where it affects their client voters, focussing on the unskilled end of the spectrum, well its about time your party got its act together on immigration for a broader set of voters including the highly skilled.

I heard this being discussed on LBC and someone (possibly from Campaign for Better Transport, but clearly someone intimate with the rationale behind the proposal) explained that it is illegal (under EU legislation?) to implement a scheme that worsens the air quality in an area that is already above the air quality threshold.

They therefore argue that any proposal for widening the motorway in an area that is already over the air quality threshold should be accompanied by provisions for lowering the speed limit.

You obviously haven’t read the letters in todays DT. One Robert Goodwill confirms that speed reductions are being considered on motorways after consultation. As someone who regularly uses junctions 28 – 34 of the M1, will they be asking my opinion.
You must really waken up to the lying that goes on to protect the EUSSR from criticism John. Pro EU MP’s are happy to take the flack so as not to derail 2Le Project”.

Unlike other European countries, the UK does not have a written constitution. We will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.

How’s this going, then? Steady progress?

The Lisbon Treaty contains a number of so called ‘ratchet clauses’, which allow the powers of the EU to expand in the future without a new Treaty. We do not believe that any of these ‘ratchet clauses’ should be used to hand over more powers from Britain to the EU. So a Conservative government will not agree to the UK’s participation in the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office or permit its jurisdiction over the UK.

” The measure was firmly opposed by the UK when it was published in July so it had always been clear that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office would have to be established by enhanced cooperation. This is explicitly foreseen by the Treaty,” the EU source said.

“In view of the positive outcome of the first discussion in the Justice Council in early October, the Commission is confident that the next steps towards a strong European Public Prosecutor’s Office will be taken in 2014 under the Greek and Italian [EU] presidency,” the official said.

[So no doubt the UK will join at some future date …? ]

We will change the 1972 Act so that an Act of Parliament would be required before any ‘ratchet clause’ could be used. Additionally, the use of a major ‘ratchet clause’ which amounted to the transfer of an area of power to the EU would be subject to a referendum. The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far.

A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of Fundamental Rights [how is that faring, by the way?] , on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.

We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers? How can this be compatible with the view that ultimate authority stays in this country? If we need to negotiate the return of those powers, what will we be giving up in return?

The Lisbon Treaty also allows for the changing of voting procedures without amending the EU treaties. Under this clause the European Council can, after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, vote unanimously to:

■ allow the Council of Ministers to act on the basis of qualified majority in areas where they previously had to act on the basis of unanimity. (This is not available for decisions with defence or military implications.)
■ allow for legislation to be adopted on the basis of the ordinary legislative procedure where it previously was to be adopted on the basis of a special legislative procedure.
■ A decision of the European Council to use either of these provisions can only come into effect if, six months after all national parliaments had been given notice of the decision, none object to it.

So much for the promise that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum – a ‘referendum lock’.

You see, the EU won’t need any future referendum in order to transfer areas of power to itself!

Was David Cameron being entirely truthful with the electorate when he so carefully specified transfer of future powers by future treaty? How much more truthful would it have been to specify that any further transfer of power with or without a Treaty would require a referendum?

We have already been stitched up.

Reply We do not have a Conservative government. Lib Dems refused to do most of these things when Conservatives sought to do them.

Those simplified procedures are highly undesirable, but on paper at least the changes that can be made by them are rather restricted, and they all still need unanimous agreement by the heads of state or government, and they all still need either the express or (more dangerously) tacit consent of all the national parliaments.

In fact the first rather minor EU treaty change to be made after the Lisbon Treaty came into force on December 1st 2009 could not be made by any of those simplified procedures, and it had to be made by the ordinary revision procedure, and it was then approved by the UK Parliament through Part 2 of the European Union Act 2011:

But the second EU treaty change was made through the simplified revision procedure in Article 48(6), and that was not a minor treaty change, it was a radical change to legalise eurozone bailouts which was approved by the UK Parliament through this Act:

It is not for Eurosceptics to challenge or de-bunk (sp) the Europhile community, they are happy in their skin, and have much of what they want, knowing, that thanks to the likes of Commissioner Reding, and others, they will in time, get the rest.

It is the job of the Eurosceptic Community to make alternative arguments and to show those who are not committed to either camp that a better future does indeed lay outside that of what for many, is now becoming clear, ie Full Union.

It is good to see that others are using their considerable skills and knowledge in the pursuit of that aim, despite the difficulties with ‘Europlastics’ – people who pretend to be Eurosceptic but try to convince others to remain inside the EU by various wheezes and guises.

The Europlastic would happy have you believe that you can be in ‘Europe’ (EU) but not necessarily run by ‘Europe’ (EU). This is a false position. You are either in a political union or not, much the same way you are either pregnant or not. You cannot be in two places and claim to be neither.

I welcome Commissioner’s Reding’s words on this subject. The more we hear what our ‘true’ masters intend for us, the better. I have long held the view that, to discuss a subject honestly and openly would enable the better ideas to win through and so lead to a better understanding and feeling on any particular subject. To deny, thorough censorship, misinformation and hostile words and actions against people wishing to put their views across on any subject, does not render those who wish to speak or have their views known less right than those who refuse to acknowledge that which is before them. You are going to have to face it sooner or later, and the sooner you do the better.

Pretending that you can renegotiate when those you wish to renegotiate with have said publicly that do not wish too, is in my view highly disingenuous. Further, to somehow refuse to discuss or even acknowledge the means by which we can quite literally leave the EU and force the EU to renegotiate with the UK suggests a gross lack of sincerity. Even further, to not have a creditable exit plan and a properly researched plan for alternatives for, ‘life outside the EU’, shows that there is no appetite from the Political Classes as well as the Establishment for the UK to leave the EU.

The Political Class and the Establishment have led the UK into a terrible place. The EU is a political project and suits no one but the Political Class and the Establishments.

If you read “The Great Deception” by North and Booker you will see that in 1931 Jean Monnet published a paper under the title “The United States of Europe”, (a federal Europe), you cannot get much clearer than that, that his dream was to build one nation under one flag with one government.

In 1970 Edward Heath knew that if Britain joined it would mean loss of sovereignty, he agreed, secretly, with Pompidou that Britain agreed with more economic and monetary union but told none in his government until it was all agreed – this was a Conservative.

In the 1975 referendum (I have the pamphlet which was delivered to every household) we were told a pack of lies to persuade us to vote “yes” to stay in, including the lie that it would NOT mean loss of sovereignty – if we have one in 2017 it will be exactly the same.

The deal struck was so complicated that Britain’s contributions were the SECOND largest and we even paid for our own rebate. Heath gave away our fishing industry as a little sweetener to the EU Commissioners – he was SO DESPERATE to join.

I believe she said that a USE was the only way to make the EU more democratic. Well yes she is probably right if the President of the commission is to be elected directly by the people of the EU also the Presidents (or what ever they are going to be called) and the members of the EP and Senate (Although I suspect it will just be the council of ministers renamed the senate). There is two problems with that adding another layer of government impedes democracy not enhances it and of course adds to the cost of government enormously particularly as government spending is always less efficient and more wasteful than that of the individual. Also representative democracy is no longer the guardian and promoter of democracy it is becoming the the usurper of it and a more direct form of democracy needs to be devised. Then of course the population of the UK is vastly outnumbered by the citizens of the other 27 member states so that more often than not decisions made in these new bastions (or not so new EP and we can see the nonsense they get up to) of EU democracy will will not be ones the people of the UK like or want.

Reply to my comment at 12.08: “A substantial number of us Eurosceptic Tories have defied 3 line whips on several occasions to try to get a better answer, but this Parliament is federalist with the Conservatives in minority. We have achieved a new policy position from the Conservative leadership in favour of a referendum as a result. You always ignore the arithmetic, but it’s the numbers in the Commons that counts.”

This Parliament is federalist with Conservative Eurosceptics in the minority in their own party, never mind the whole Parliament. It is you who ignores the arithmetic.

You have achieved nothing except a conditional promise from a leader who openly opposes your view and has a record of breaking his word. Counting numbers is an excuse for inaction. Nothing results from comparing the relative degrees of treason between parties and individuals. All are guilty and it matters not whether guilt comes from deliberate action, carelessness, inaction, or any other cause. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for Lawbreaking. Common Law has been with us for over a thousand years, and it is long past time that Parliamentarians conformed to it.

If the other EU countries want the EU to become the USE there’s not much the UK can do about it. Ultimately our choices will be remain in the USE, try to negotiate a bilateral agreement (which will involve obeying most of USE laws), or be outside the USE and be subject to tariffs like the USA and China. What the UK will not get is free access to the common market will being able to ignore USE laws.

In other news the failure of IDS to close a 1996 housing benefit loophole means that 40,000 people could have wrongly been subject to the bedroom tax, so expect these claims to reduce the amount this tax is meant to save.

Access to the Single Market / EEA can be achieved much the same way that Norway and other members of EFTA do.

They have a say in the shaping of the rules of the Single Market but the Commission have ultimate decision. Access to the Single Market does not mean that UK domestic rules are controlled by the EU, only when selling too other members of the EU/EEA.

This has been covered many times before and yet you still refuse to accept it and have as far as I can tell not debunked this position.

I can only conclude that this is deliberate misinformation on your part which does not serve you or your position well.

I do not ex[ect you to change though. But neither will I and to that end I shall continue to oppose your view to prevent others from believing you deliberate lies.

Mark–I personally gave up reading anything and everything, without exception, by Unanime a long time ago, even her or his (unwanted) Replies, and I must say I haven’t felt the lack, but you obviously have a stronger stomach. If you will allow me to try and amplify your own excellent Reply, we need to get across to a nervous public that we would not be in a different position vis a vis the (soon to be) USE, from that which Canada is happily in right now vis a vis the USA. It is truly a mystery at least to me why we have subjugated ourselves as we have (to complete foreigners with whom we have precious little in common) when anyone in Canada would think one mad to suggest that they should do the same just because they are adjacent to a bigger bloc. And Canada and the USA have the enormous land border not to mention the same language. Also we still have very significant contacts and friends around the World (Canada has too but not quite to the same extent). Canada is just an example of course but it proves absolutely that any question of our having to be in the EU is total tripe. I might soon turn in favour of abolishing the House of Lords.

Thank you for your kind words, Leslie. You are indeed correct in all points.

in a recent exchange, I asked U5 for some links to information he/she posted. The reply I got was, “which one do you want ?”, to which I replied, “I am not fussy”. Needless to say, I never got my links.

I believe that, if you believe in something, then you should be prepared to defend it. If your position is wrong, for whatever reason, there is no shame to admit it. The internet is a great liberator of freedom of information and knowledge. Only an FOOL would be so closed as to use it, and those who wish to join in, in increasing their own, as well as others knowledge and understanding. Uanimie5 does not help, only hinder.

The UK may be able to extract itself from the EU; it has it’s own currency, so it is possible.

Please consider that regional framework agreements will be the way forward in the EU; these will establish a One Euro Government; it will establish regional security, stability and sustainability out of a soon coming credit collapse and global financial system breakdown

The bond vigilantes in calling higher in the Benchmark Interest Rate, ^TNX, higher from 2.48%, on October 23, 2013, as well as the failure of debt trade investing and currency carry trade investing on January 2, 2013, were twin extinction events that destroyed the foundation, capstone, and centerpiece of liberalism, that being the investor; and are birthing authoritarianism’s counterpart, the debt serf.

God fully, totally, and utterly terminated liberalism, and commenced authoritarianism, giving it The full constitution of endtime rule, as presented by the Apostle Paul in Revelation 13:1-4.

Now, under the paradigm and age of authoritarianism, the focus of attention is on regional governance policies seeking regional security, regional stability, and regional sustainability, which integrate not only banks, but all corporations into the government to assure debt servitude of the debt serf, which comes through the transmission of diktat money. We see this emerging as Mike Mish Shedlock reports on the rising ethic of authoritarian rule Hollande wants to “Get Things Done” by decree, not by passing laws.

Five years of liberalism’s money manager capitalism is going to produce authoritarianism’s Minsky moment. This is seen in Bible Prophecy of Revelation 13:3-4, which foretells of Financial Apocalypse, that is a world wide credit bust and financial system breakdown.

Club Med, that is Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, sovereign, corporate, and banking insolvency, will be the genesis event of the establishment of economic policies of diktat in regional governance in each of the world’s ten regions, and schemes of totalitarian collectivism throughout all of mankind’s seven institutions. As a result, fiat money will become increasingly worthless, while diktat money rises in power to direct mankind’s economic activity.

Under liberalism, the democratic nation state banker regime, created seigniorage, that is moneyness, and coined fiat money and fiat wealth through Investment Bankers via POMO, as well as through Asset Managers, (names left out ed) where they endeavored to maximize return for investor; these proved to be quite effective in monetary transmission, as the investor, for the most part, became quite wealthy according to his skills and risk profile.

Creditism, corporatism and globalism were the dynamos of liberalism’s economic activity, whose purpose and focus was for investment return. Economic growth metrics, such as job creation, ADP Employment, increasing GDP, are hokum, that is they are exogenous to liberalism’s purpose of providing investment return for the investor based upon one’s risk profile. Monetary transmission under liberalism was quite effective in a five investment areas: 1) Risk Investing, 2) Global Spending Investing, 3) Global Growth Investing, 4) Consumer Spending Investing and 5) Eurozone Countries.

Under authoritarianism, in response to a deflatinary bust, leaders will meet in summits to renounce national sovereignty and announce regional framework agreements which provide regional pooled sovereignty to establish the authority for diktat policies of regional governance.

The beast regime, replaces the banker regime, and creates seigniorage, that is moneyness, by minting money through the word, will and way of regional nannycrats; these coin diktat money through the mandates of statist public private partnerships, and in their mandates administering and overseeing the factors of production, banking, fiscal spending, commerce and trade, all for establishing regional security, stability, and security, in their role of overseeing the debt serf.

Banks everywhere will be integrated into the government and be known as government banks, or govbanks for short; thus the Excess Reserves, will be captured by the beast regime, and not being released will not pose an inflationary threat. The Regional Banks, KRE, and the Too Big To Fail Banks, along with greatly downsized Asset Managers,(names left out ed) will all be made whole and sterilized by integration into the US Federal Reserve. The European Financials, EUFN, will be integrated into the ECB in Frankfurt, where all lending will be supervised and banks overseen. Such will be the mechanism of authoritarianism’s scheme of totalitarian collectivism.

Regionalism is the singular dynamo of economic activity under authoritarianism. Monetary transmission will become quite effective for a number of people, as bible prophecy reveals “they worshiped and followed after the beast, saying who can make war against it”, Revelation 13:3-4.

If you don’t want to join a Federation and other Member States are Hell bent on creating one, the only options are to leave or create a two ring Europe, Federal with the Euro and non-Federal without it.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.